We recently discussed the gathering of Democratic politicians and media figures at the University of Chicago to discuss how to better shape news, combat “disinformation,” and reeducate those with conservative views. The political and media elite shared ideas on how to expand censorship and control what people read or viewed in the news. The same figures are now alarmed that Elon Musk could gain greater influence over Twitter and, perish the thought, restore free speech protections to the site. The latest is former labor secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich, who wrote a perfectly Orwellian column in the Guardian titled “Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense.” However, the column offers an insight into the anti-free speech mentality that has taken hold of the Democratic party and the mainstream media.
Musk is an advocate for free speech on the Internet. Like some of us, he is an Internet originalist. That makes him an existential threat for those who have long used “disinformation” as an excuse to silence dissenting views in the media and on social media.
Twitter has gone from denial of seeking to shape speech on the Internet to embracing that function. After the old Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was criticized for his massive censorship efforts, Twitter replaced him with CEO Parag Agrawal who has expressed chilling anti-free speech sentiments. In an interview with Technology Review editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield, he was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. Agrawal responded;
“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.
One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention.”
He added that Twitter would be “moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”
Reich lays that agenda bare in his column while condemning free speech advocates as petty tyrants oppressing people through freedom.
Reich explains that it is not about freedom but tyranny. More free speech means less freedom. It is the type of argument commonly used in China and other authoritarian nations–and an increasing number of American academics and writers. Indeed, his column is reminiscent of the professors who have called for the adoption of the Chinese model for censoring views on the Internet.
In an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
Reich tells people not to be lured by freedom of speech: “Musk says he wants to ‘free’ the internet. But what he really aims to do is make it even less accountable than it is now.” What Reich refers to as “accountability” is being accountable to those like himself who can filter out views and writings that are deemed harmful for readers.
Reich then goes full Orwellian:
“Musk advocates free speech but in reality it’s just about power. Power compelled Musk to buy $2.64bn of Twitter stock, making him the largest individual shareholder.”
Reich insists that censorship of views like former President Donald Trump are “necessary to protect American democracy.” Get it? Less freedom is more freedom.
The column gets increasingly bizarre as Reich cites the fact that Musk has continued to express banned thoughts as proof that he is a menace:
“Billionaires like Musk have shown time and again they consider themselves above the law. And to a large extent, they are. Musk has enough wealth that legal penalties are no more than slaps on his wrist, and enough power to control one of the most important ways the public now receives news. Think about it: after years of posting tweets that skirt the law, Musk was given a seat on Twitter’s board (and is probably now negotiating for even more clout).”
Reich then delivers his terrifying warning:
“That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”
That nightmare, of course, is free speech. It is a nightmare that people like Reich and those at the “Disinformation conference” will lose control over media and social media.
Imagine a site where people are largely free to express themselves without supervision or approval. What a nightmare.
[Warning foul language and full irony]
Imagine all the people – saying what they think…
CNBC All-America Economic Survey: Biden’s approval rating shrinks to lowest level since presidency began
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2022/04/13/cnbc-all-america-economic-survey-bidens-approval-rating-shrinks-to-lowest-level-since-presidency-began.html
Approve: 38%
Disapprove 53%
Spread -15%
Let’s Go Brandon!
Jonathan: Anyone who thinks, as you do, Elon Musk will “restore free speech protections to the site [Twitter]” is the one living in an Orwellian universe. It is delusional to think Musk is an “Internet originalist”. Musk did not buy $2.64 billion in Twitter stock because of his commitment to “free speech”. Musk wants to control Twitter’s platform so he, and he alone, can determine what views are expressed. The first thing Musk would do is probably restore Trump’s account–and we know what Trump thinks about “free speech”. On Trump’s platform, Truth Social, critics of Trump can’t set up an account. As Robert Reich points out in his Guardian article about Musk and “free speech”: “…ever since I posted a tweet two years ago criticizing him for how he treated his Tesla workers he has blocked me–so I can’t view or post criticisms of his tweets to his followers”. It’s a power grab by Musk to control what is permitted on Twitter.
Reich also points out that “Billionaires like Musk have shown time and again they consider themselves above the law”. Reich was prescient. On Tuesday Twitter investors sued Musk for failing to notify the SEC within 10 days that he had taken more than a 5% stake in Twitter. He reached that milestone on March 14–meaning he should have notified the SEC on March 24. Musk didn’t announce his 9.2% stake until April 4. The delay permitted Musk to net $156 million!
Neither Musk not Trump are dedicated to “free speech”. They want power to control the content on the social platforms they invest in so those platforms reflect their economic and political interests. That’s the part you missed in your post.
The first thing Musk would do is probably restore Trump’s account–and we know what Trump thinks about “free speech”,
Do we know this? How? What does he think?
Trump had four years in the WH and a majority in the senate…when did he curtail speech? The guy was hammered daily by 90% of the media and did nothing to curtail their rights.
Facts don’t matter to fascists.
The GOP didn’t agree with Trump’s desire “to open up our libel laws.” Trump repeatedly stated his desire “to open up our libel laws,” but could not do it without agreement from Congress. Don’t confuse Congress’s desires with Trump’s desires.
Here’s some of what Trump thinks:
“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. … we’re going to open up those libel laws, folks, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before…”
“I think it’s a disgrace that someone’s able to have something, do something like that [referring to the book “Fire and Fury”]. The libel laws are very weak in this country. If they were strong, it would be very helpful. You wouldn’t have things like that happen where you can say whatever comes to your head.”
“The libel laws in this country suck.”
“Somebody said to me on that, they said, ‘You know, it’s a great idea, softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, you’re right, I never thought about that.’ I said, ‘You know, I have to start thinking about that.’”
Trump not a fan of free speech when it’s used to criticize him.
“Trump not a fan of free speech when it’s used to criticize him.”
If you were a tad smarter than a moron, you would realize this has more to do with press freedom. The press is excessively protected from libel. Free speech and libel travel on the same path.
The press still can be guilty of libel, even with protections. Just ask CNN about the Sandman case. Or better yet, read NY Times v Sullivan where the Court lays out how difficult it is and yet does not give the press carte blanche to KNOWINGLY write maliciously incorrect things.
Hullbobby, I think what many people are trying to limit is the inability of a public figure to sue for libel, permitting the media to step far out of bounds.
The media attempted to claim Sandman was a public figure so that the suit would be more challenging. Had the media prevailed on that point, Sandman probably would have lost or settled for a lot less.
S Meyer, I don’t disagree with your point, but I think the Court is RIGHTLY open to the idea of making some sort of adjustment to Sullivan, even though a liberal (read as old fashioned liberal) assessment of Sullivan would also allow for a defamation case against a media outlet even by a public figure. If the NY Times said that Trump was at a Nazi rally when at the time of the rally he was in their office I think he could have a case. Or better yet, for the “real” world, if The NY Post said that Obama was at an ISIS rally while he was in their office, he would probably have a case.
Sullivan should have been limited to public officials, nominees for public office, and candidates for public officials.
The Sullivan in Sullivan was a cop with lawful authority to exercise coercion.
Hullbobby, I think we agree. I don’t want to reverse Sullivan. I wish to alter it slightly enough that the press contains itself from outright lies.
Trump not a fan of free speech when it’s used to criticize him.
Gosh. A politician advocating for congressional action. How will democracy survive?
Those on the left can not distinguish the difference between what people say and what they do.
The press, social media, much of govenrment – lie to us, spread disinformation, and supress the truth.
And most importantly they set themselves up as the arbiters of truth.
They ACT.
Trump says lots of things some good, some bad.
He does not act on the bad ones.
Not only were libel laws not changed under Trump – there was no effort to do so.
Trumps remarks are rantings of displeasure. We all do that some times.
He did not attempt to make them reality.
The left can be trusted to strive to do what they say – and fail horribly at it.
Restoring President Trump’s account would be an exercise in the protection of free speech. I’m sure Mr. Musk will pay his fine to the SEC, and be careful about notifications as he inches toward a controlling share. So funny that your last sentence perfectly describes the motivations and actions of the leftists. Or, have you been under a rock as Facebook, Twitter, et al. have been shutting down the views of people with whom they disagree?
“Restoring President Trump’s account would be an exercise in the protection of free speech.”
Twitter is a private company and has its own First Amendment right to block an account that violates its Terms of Use.
“Terms of Use.”
Already we are hearing the dumb leftists and Democrats, like you, worrying about people like Musk changing the rules to increase free speech on Twitter. Hypocrisy non-stop.
Twitter is a public company that acts within the private sector. It has certain rights, and with such rights come certain obligations. It is considered a town square with responsibilities attached, especially since it falls under laws, including section 230 that protects it from lawsuits. Additionally, it has become increasingly clear that Twitter has acted in conjunction with the government carrying out policy that would be unconstitutional if the government did so on its own.
“Twitter [has the right] right to block an account” that expresses opinions contrary to the Establishment.
Now your statement is truthful.
My actual claim — Twitter is a private company and has its own First Amendment right to block an account that violates its Terms of Use — is truthful.
“. . . is truthful.”
No. It’s dishonest.
The constant reference to “Terms of Use” is a cover for their actual motivation — to ban dissenters.
Sam, if you can actually read people’s minds, do something useful with it and save some lives from a violent domestic terrorist.
My claim — Twitter is a private company and has its own First Amendment right to block an account that violates its Terms of Use — is a fact. Twitter is a private company. Like all private companies in the US, Twitter has First Amendment rights. Twitter also has a right to block an account that violates its Terms of Use.
Nothing you’ve said changes those facts.
There is no evidence to support your position, moron.
Dennis McIntyre, please provide a quote from Trump were he proposed keeping anyone from speaking. He pointed out fake news but he never said that such news should be eliminated from the public square. Just because you think it so it does not make it true. Please provide a zip code for the wonderland you live in. I will become concerned if Musk begins to censor the speech of the leftist who post on Twitter. You seem to think that Musk will limit the presence of leftist on the twitter platform without presenting any evidence that such a thing will occur. I understand, because such evidence resides in your brain we are all supposed to accept that your opinion has some veracity. However, we know fore sure that Robert Reich is in favor of limiting what may be said on any and all platforms. He said it in his own words so unlike you we don’t have to make up in our heads what he will say and do if given the chance in the future. Your boogie men are delusional while our truths are based on what Reich has actually said in public. I understand, sometimes for Dennis it is so hard to separate fact from fiction.
Ti T,
Has it occurred to you to read the Terms of Service on Trump’s social media platform?
Here you go: https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/
Notice the sections where they place limits on what can be posted, including “As a user of the Service, you agree not to: … [long list] When you create or make available any Contributions, you thereby represent and warrant that: … your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable. … Any use of the Service in violation of the foregoing violates these Terms of Service and may result in, among other things, termination or suspension of your rights to use the Service and removal or deletion of your Contributions.”
Here’s Twitter’s: https://twitter.com/en/tos
According to you, how are these significantly different?
Is Reich Psychologically projecting?: a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others.
I wonder if he would round up those who disagree with him and cart them off to reeducation camps? Its scary how these people openly discuss suppression of free speech by anyone other than them.
Turley claims to be an “internet originalist,” and says that means “no censorship.” Yet he sometimes censors comments here, so he does not practice what he preaches. His ostensible belief that a private company must host all speech conflicts with the company’s own speech rights, yet Turley never ever addresses this conflict. Does he believe, for example, that a social media company must host legal violent speech and images? (Violent comments are one of the categories of comments that he removes here.) He ignores the fact that social media use algorithms that highlight some speech over other speech, sometimes in harmful ways, so the issue is not simply what speech is hosted, but what speech is given a megaphone.
It is a facile argument on his end. These issues are important, and Turley would serve his readers better by dealing with them in their complexity. Alas.
“Turley claims to be an “internet originalist,” and says that means “no censorship.” Yet he sometimes censors comments here,”
How many ties will this loon post the same thing? He should read what Turley says and recognize that censorship always exists. The idea is to limit censorship especially political censorship as much as possible.
The loon likes to fight.
“…..but what speech is given a megaphone.”
Alas, your megaphone is harmful, violent and spreads misinformation. Professor Turley should censor people like you but alas he will not….ever
What makes you think Professor Turley thinks social media outlets must protect speech not protected by law?
What makes you think I claimed he does?
Leftist scum always use this empty argument.
Many of us who lived through the Clinton Administration have vivid recollections of what ‘Bob’ Reich was saying, publicly, back then. Those of you readers here at the Turley blog site who weren’t aware of Reich back then should do a Search see who Reich is. I don’t fully understand why he was at this recent Conference except as an attendee. But to give him a podium, to give him more than token credibility in today’s world, seems a bit desperate on the part of the Conference organizers.
Putin:
Give him fifteen days to begin full evacuation of Ukraine.
If he dosent begin bean DC announce withdrawal the proclaim 50 year time of no Russia interaction in commerce or travel. Cut them off!
We live in a country where more than one idea at a time can exist, political freedom. That is what Robert Reich is against and demonstrates how close Robert Reich’s thinking is to the CCP.
How does that idea of only one permissible thought affect us in real-time? Take Covid. Shutdowns were the left method, but others like DeSantis had alternative ideas that proved successful. Those alternative ideas saved us from what the Chinese in Shanghai are doing, a complete shutdown of 22 million with people dying without medical care, potentially starving and not being able to get their medications, trucks stopped in their tracks, etc.
Anyone who likes Robert Reich’s CCP politics should consider how they would feel if they were one of the 22 million people frozen in their Shanghai homes.
(OT)
Biden’s Inflation
Inflation is now at 8.5%. (In reality, it’s more like 15%.) Put into practical terms, that’s a tax on the middle class of about $5,000/year.
For decades, as each Five-Year-Plan tanked their economy, the Soviets were infamous for blaming anything and everyone — except, of course, for their own statist policies and political system. They mastered the art of deflection — to blame: bad weather, bad actors abroad, malcontents within, human nature, prior “bad” dictators.
As the U.S. economy tanks, the Biden administration regurgitates the Soviet art of evasion and deflection. Don’t blame their policies for skyrocketing prices, the energy crisis, devastating inflation. Don’t blame their profligate spending, creation of fiat money, and energy-destroying regulations.
Instead, blame a bad foreign actor — Putin. The massive increase in the cost of everything from energy to food to housing is, they lie, a: “Putin price hike.”
The Soviets would be proud.
Keep in mind that a good many of these top progressive leaders were, like hillary, enthralled with Alinsky’s rules for radicals. I blame the republicans who sat back idly, under the guise of being “too polite” to say anything and allowed the left to overtake our media/education industry. Now what are those on the right prepared to do about this congestion/coagulation of anti-Americans very well ensconced in soooooo many seats of power? Time to stop talking and wringing hands and actually
Alma, please be careful with you assigning of blame. You are equating the evil with those that did not stop evil, and that is wrong. Of course evil should be and sometimes must be stopped, but America waiting to bomb the train lines in Germany during ww II was not as bad as Hitler using said train lines.
It is the left that is destroying the country right now, of course Republicans should be doing more to stop them, but IT IS THE LEFT DOING THE DAMAGE. We can argue, and agree, that we need to elect better Republicans, not soft people like Lindsey Graham, but Graham is not as bad as Schumer, Schiff or Pelosi…right?
Not much of a difference a lot of times when we need him most.
To do nothing in the face of evil is even more egregious since you are aware of the evil and sit back an enable it. I strongly disagree and while many with limited intelligence can blindly follow evil leaders, those with the intelligence to see the evil and do nothing are EVEN MORE responsible for that evil being allowed to flourish under their watch. If that makes some queasy for their inaction, so be it.
At 76 years of age, reich like so many of the “me generation” narcissists who ascended to “political” and “academic” roles consistent with their misguided “sense of self-importance” are ripe for cognitive decline. … And, many are clearly suffering such, sustained by SSRIs and handlers, unaware or unwilling to consider their mortality. Perhaps reich’s brutal honesty in this “opinion piece” exemplifies his progressive loss of “inhibitions”. … Perhaps the cognitive decline of our “political leaders” will save us. … At some point they will all seemingly drop simultaneously “as the disease carrying flies” they are; and their minions will scatter like the parasitic roaches they are.
Reich jumped the shark a long time ago and is nothing more than a caricature at this point
And +1 for the Marisa Tomei clip
Interesting he rants about truth and lies but makes no mention of when the billionaire class suppresses free speech about a certain laptop owned by a certain Big Guy’s son.
It is okay when his billionaire class does it, but not when anyone with opposing views do.
OT: I watched Biden’s press conference on his ban on ghost guns on Twitter. The leftists there are as delusional as the ones who post here. Someone noted the “prostitute,” part, and they nearly came unglued.
Reich is a Radical Leftist who use to be for free speach but now he is afraid of free speach like all Leftist, they know come 2022 they will lose the elctions and control and they are going nut especially with Elon buying into Twitter. Sta tuned the Left will get really nuts as November elections approach or when or if Elon takes over Twitter????????????
Lefties like Reich ran over free speech long ago but they keep pretending they’re for some notion of it even as they trash it over and over again. Reich condemns Putin’s efforts to control what his citizens see on the internet but then advocates Big Tech monopolies do the same because they’re on the side of social justice. Reich will remain free to tweet what he wants because he and Big Tech are all about controlling what citizens see and read on the internet. The truth is Reich wants to censor and ban people he dislikes while forcing them to listen to him. Leftists have adopted the totalitarian playbook of authoritarian regimes, silencing, and censoring everyone they dislike to “protect American democracy”.
An argument for free speech, elegantly said by el gato malo: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/circumventing-manipulation-via-trojan?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email&s=r
Dark Shadows [The Cover-Up Continues – Just the Tip of the Teck Iceberg]
‘Something That’s Frightening’: Robert Epstein Warns Against Big Tech Manipulation
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/something-thats-frightening-robert-epstein-warns-against-big-tech-manipulation
Can it really be that this aged toad actually believes the tripe he is spewing? But I suppose that the brainwashed leftists will nonetheless agree with him… “[T]he dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth” … is free speech?
His rants on NPR were priceless.
Reich has always been a malignant partisan, but for a former Dem cabinet official to push censorship is revealing.
Americans need to prevent these people from winning elections.
Wow, I said basically the same thing earlier today on Twitter.
Much as I love my state, the University of Arizona is an academic cesspool. Still, they do have a model of the USS Arizona and some of the silverware recovered from the ship in the Memorial Union.